Sorry, but no, it's not comparable. From your argument it is ok to conclude that TNG movies have less deepness than TNG series, because it is more concentrated on action. Ok, I can agree with it. But it's not comparable with what J.J. Abrams has done. TNG movies have their depth and message, maybe not as deep as series, but they have it, while Abrams' Trek is fully concentrated on action, and this action that is present there is not even comparable with the action we have in TNG films. Also, in what way did TNG films change so much characters? I really don't see it. But what Abrams has done is extreme. You are comparing a little rain with flood. In both cases we have water, but extent of it is so different that you can't even compare it.
Remind me again which movie has a 74 year old man run with Akimbo style phaser rifles shooting through a ship full of purple space orcs and riding a dune buggy with rocket launcher just for the sake of riding a dune buggy with rocket launcher? And the way First Contact completely rewrote the Borg and changed everything not only about it but Picard's/Locutus story in the first place so the whole movie doesn't make sense is unprecedented. Then having Picard and Data fight for a bunch of squatters unwilling to help suffering worlds because they don't feel like it. And finally the Dune buggy... oh, I mentioned the dune buggy before
The JJ movies have the same old megalomanic villian seeking revenge plot all the TNG movies have.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Real Trekkies know what the No True Scotsman fallacy is.
So I am a real Trekkie? Man, this is just going back and forth. I'm starting to think this whole "real Trekkie" thing might be kinda TRIBBLE. But that's probably just my non-real-Trekkie brain talking.
Your father was captain of a starship for twelve minutes. He saved 800 lives, including your mother's, and yours.
I fail to see the point of a discussion of who is and is not a "Real Trekkie"
Is there some sort of initiation? A secret ritual conducted by the light of the new moon?
I find the term, "Real Trekkie" silly. Either one likes Star Trek or one does not. Some of us know a little bit more about the shows and films and their backgrounds, yes. But such knowledge does not indicate one fan is superior to another.
A six year old boy and his starship. Living the dream.
I fail to see the point of a discussion of who is and is not a "Real Trekkie"
Is there some sort of initiation? A secret ritual conducted by the light of the new moon?
I find the term, "Real Trekkie" silly. Either one likes Star Trek or one does not. Some of us know a little bit more about the shows and films and their backgrounds, yes. But such knowledge does not indicate one fan is superior to another.
I must say that I agree with this. When opening this discussion, my goal was not to discuss about who is and who isn't a "real Trekkie". I only wanted to complain about one concrete film, because I just watched it that day and wanted to share my frustration somewhere My point is, however, that Star Trek by J.J. Abrams has nothing to do with Star Trek which we love, it totally misses the spirit of Star Trek, and I stay strongly on this position. For me, that guy is ruining Star Trek.
I fail to see the point of a discussion of who is and is not a "Real Trekkie"
Is there some sort of initiation? A secret ritual conducted by the light of the new moon?
I find the term, "Real Trekkie" silly. Either one likes Star Trek or one does not. Some of us know a little bit more about the shows and films and their backgrounds, yes. But such knowledge does not indicate one fan is superior to another.
I must say that I agree with this. When opening this discussion, my goal was not to discuss about who is and who isn't a "real Trekkie". I only wanted to complain about one concrete film, because I just watched it that day and wanted to share my frustration somewhere My point is, however, that Star Trek by J.J. Abrams has nothing to do with Star Trek which we love, it totally misses the spirit of Star Trek, and I stay strongly on this position. For me, that guy is ruining Star Trek.
Then you're full of bovine biological byproduct. And a hypocrite to boot. People like you are continually braying like j**Ka***s about how you hate the Abrams films but love Star Trek. You are not high enough in the food chain to tell myself and others what parts of Star Trek are and are not "Real Star Trek", Get over yourself and move on from this childish throwing of temper tantrums in public. If Star Trek can only attract alleged fans like you, then it deserves to die.
I fail to see the point of a discussion of who is and is not a "Real Trekkie"
Is there some sort of initiation? A secret ritual conducted by the light of the new moon?
I find the term, "Real Trekkie" silly. Either one likes Star Trek or one does not. Some of us know a little bit more about the shows and films and their backgrounds, yes. But such knowledge does not indicate one fan is superior to another.
I must say that I agree with this. When opening this discussion, my goal was not to discuss about who is and who isn't a "real Trekkie". I only wanted to complain about one concrete film, because I just watched it that day and wanted to share my frustration somewhere My point is, however, that Star Trek by J.J. Abrams has nothing to do with Star Trek which we love, it totally misses the spirit of Star Trek, and I stay strongly on this position. For me, that guy is ruining Star Trek.
Then you're full of bovine biological byproduct. And a hypocrite to boot. People like you are continually braying like j**Ka***s about how you hate the Abrams films but love Star Trek. You are not high enough in the food chain to tell myself and others what parts of Star Trek are and are not "Real Star Trek", Get over yourself and move on from this childish throwing of temper tantrums in public. If Star Trek can only attract alleged fans like you, then it deserves to die.
long life to JJtrek stuff. i'm 42, so I have seen the tv shows a long time ago. And for me JJtrek is like fresh air in a poisoned room.
It surely is. But it is also not my place to decide for others what is and is not Star Trek.
Not high enough in food chain? Hypocrite? And you are abnormal idiot who can't accept that someone has different opinion. How high in food chain are you? What kind of food does your divine body consumes that critics of JJ Abrams can't? You definitely sound like someone who is formed by JJ Abrams' characters, and the rest of modern american tv heroes whose main characteristic is to not be able to be polite. I have expressed my opinion and given my arguments. If you can't accept them, then discuss them, and if you can't do it politely, then don't use your precious time to bother with this topic. After all, you are high in food chain, why would you discuss with simple flora and fungi? But if you come here and call others names, then I am going to do the same.
I was growing up with Star Trek, and it had big influence in me in my teenage years... I am really a fan of that series and have emotional connection with it, like probably the most of us here. But for few years I "got away" from it, in the sense that I wasn't watching series anymore (or better say re-watching, because I saw all series back in my time) or thinking about Star Trek, and I was concentrating on other things in life... So when a film Star Trek came in 2009, I didn't go to see it... and neither did I see the ones that came after it. But then I found STO, and it has awaken Trekkie in me again... except playing the game, I started rewatching Star Trek... I saw once again entire DS9 and Enterprise, and partially also TNG... Lately I was rewatching films... And after I saw TNG films, which I loved every minute of, and which made me feel such a nostalgia... I wanted to finally see those new films which I never saw before. So, yesterday I saw Star Trek (2009). And I was so disappointed that I had to share it somewhere, so I am doing it here now...... I saw a typical brainless SF action movie. And SF action movie is everything what real Star Trek was NOT about!!! This was film without any deepness, any intellectual wisdom that all other Star Trek had. It had just a lot of crazy action, and typical American heros (no offence to Americans here) who are mostly portrayed as moronic hooligans who accidentally appear to be very clever and full of virtues in the same time. It's true that some Star Trek characters that we saw in real Trek had a bit of this attitude too: Kirk, Archer, Trip, Riker - they all had a bit of it, but the most of it had definitely Tom Paris. But not to this extreme extent. Trip, Riker and Archer were nevertheless very normal and responsible persons even if there was a bit of attitude... But those personalities which we have in this film, like the one when Kirk is eating apple on the exam, or drives crazily that car when he is maybe 11 years old, and so on.. I mean come on..... Let me not even mention very bad designed villains, and those ships that appear in that movie, like the Romulan one and Spock one... where did that come from? From which other SF did they borrow such design? And I could complain more and more.... But I should say one thing: that afternoon when I was 10 years old and I was bored, looking through TV channels, if I came upon this film, maybe I would see it, maybe it would be fun, but the very next day I would forget about it. But thanks God, on that afternoon 15 years ago, what I came upon by switching through channels was a real Star Trek, and after seeing the first episode, I started to love it, and saw all the other, and Star Trek will forever be in my heart. But real Star Trek, not this modern ****. I don't even want to watch next films, because these people are killing all that I loved about Star Trek...
Thank you!
JJ Trek is Trek in NAME only, in my opinion. Just a bunch of "leave your brain at the door" action films. Hell, even JJ himself said Trek was 'too smart' for him growing up. Personally, if someone's going to make a Trek film, have the person making it be a fan, foremost. Phase 2, ST Continues and Axanar (blows a raspberry at CBS) were made by fans and quite good, and living to what is the heart of Trek. JJ Kirk is nothing but your typical bad boy who is a jerk and just happens to be able save the day. JJ Spock...waiting for him to get a black uniform, and sit in his quarters, cutting himself with razors while listening to the Cure. McCoy needs to be older. Scotty is a circus clown purely for comedy, and what's the deal with that goblin sidekick of his? Sulu....useless. Chekov, the new Wesley Crusher. Uhura: Spock's booty call. The Enterprise, imo, looks hideous, both inside and out (a brewery or whatever they used for engineering for the alien ships did not look good in the original V, nor does it look good 25+ years later). Don't like the idea of a more militant Starfleet, either.
To me, JJ Trek would be better as a story on the Mirror Universe TOS crew. Since the JJ Prise makes a lot more sense if the events of a Mirror Darkly were used here, rather than the arrival of a Borgified Red Dwarf commanded by one of the most boring bad guys in trek lore.
Am I the only one who actually likes all ST shows and movies? Obviously that some more than others.
And I thought I was rare as it was for liking Star Trek and Star Wars. Imagine that.
I fail to see the point of a discussion of who is and is not a "Real Trekkie"
Is there some sort of initiation? A secret ritual conducted by the light of the new moon?
Yes, now rub this jam on your body and go out and Vulcan sign the Moon.
Thanks, The neighbors screamed. Their children cried. The cops took me away in handcuffs.
Yes, Antonio. You're being a hypocrite. You state that it was not your intention to say who was and was not a "real Trekkie" - and in the very next sentence you say that "we" hate the new movies.
"We" have no such feelings. I hate the opening of Into Dorkness, because it runs roughshod over real physics rather than using traditional Treknobabble, but I rather like the movies. They feel like TOS.
I really don't care you hate the new films. Ain't my place to make you like them.
Ain't your place to decide what is and is not Star Trek for me and mine. All I am asking for is this: How about people who do hate the new films shut up about it? Tired of seeing it Tired of hearing it. It is always the same tired nonsense which is something along the lines of - i hate the new films because blah-blah-blah, So you should hate them too. That is the same tired old nonsense which has been running around since 2009. Your message is trite, boring and unoriginal. Common, even.
We got it the firdt time. You're not adding anything fresh or intersting to the conversation. You're copying what someone else who has a much better command of English than you do said so much better years ago. That's not just boring, it's lazy. Both of these are cardinal sins on the internet, aren't they?
Lastly, if you cannot take someone strongly disagreeing with you in public. perhaps the Internet is not the place for you. Telling an anonymous someone to stay out of your little bash fest when you have no power to make them do so is completely rididculous.
A six year old boy and his starship. Living the dream.
I really don't care you hate the new films. Ain't my place to make you like them.
Ain't your place to decide what is and is not Star Trek for me and mine. All I am asking for is this: How about people who do hate the new films shut up about it? Tired of seeing it Tired of hearing it. It is always the same tired nonsense which is something along the lines of - i hate the new films because blah-blah-blah, So you should hate them too. That is the same tired old nonsense which has been running around since 2009. Your message is trite, boring and unoriginal. Common, even.
We got it the firdt time. You're not adding anything fresh or intersting to the conversation. You're copying what someone else who has a much better command of English than you do said so much better years ago. That's not just boring, it's lazy. Both of these are cardinal sins on the internet, aren't they?
Lastly, if you cannot take someone strongly disagreeing with you in public. perhaps the Internet is not the place for you. Telling an anonymous someone to stay out of your little bash fest when you have no power to make them do so is completely rididculous.
So if you don't care that I don't like the movie, then DON'T READ this discussion! I didn't force anyone to read it, I opened this thread to share my thoughts, because after seeing the film for the first time, I wanted to see if someone else thinks the same, or are there other opinions. And yes, I didn't know what other people think because I don't spend the major part of my life on internet forums, so if for you this topic is unoriginal, it's not my problem, no one forced you to read it. For me it is very original.
And no, I didn't copy what other people wrote about that topic, because I didn't read any opinion about film before posting my topic. And about your comment concerning my English, well sorry, it's not my native tongue, and remark like that just once again shows your lack of culture. I can bet that I speak more languages than you, but does it matter?
Cardinal sins on the internet? xD Sorry, but who wrote internet commandments ever? What is this divinization of internet for? Internet is just a tool, nothing more, don't make special new ethics and morality out of it. But ok, maybe I didn't learn well internet "rules", but you are definitely the one who lacks culture of communication.
You can strongly disagree with someone without offending and calling someone a hypocrite and similar things. But oh my.. am I really required to teach you something that your parents should have taught you? I feel sorry for you, really.
Yes, Antonio. You're being a hypocrite. You state that it was not your intention to say who was and was not a "real Trekkie" - and in the very next sentence you say that "we" hate the new movies.
"We" have no such feelings. I hate the opening of Into Dorkness, because it runs roughshod over real physics rather than using traditional Treknobabble, but I rather like the movies. They feel like TOS.
I take it to mean that Cold Fusion has been so thoroughly debunked by the 23rd century that the word has been adopted for a new meaning.
And I suppose that the aliens on this world had superior eyesight, busy astrologists and a thin atmosphere so that they were constantly watching the skies for suspicious new stars that it was safer to land underwater than stay in high orbit - if I tell this myself long enough, the Enterprise stars coming out of the water and my mind is then completely focused on the beauty I see, and the cognitive dissonance can't set in.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Mustrum, what I mean is that if "cold fusion" were a reality, it just means a fusion reaction that takes place at less than millions of degrees. It does not mean "freezing molten lava in place" - that's Captain Cold, not Cold Fusion. Tell me it's the result of a tetryon cascade interacting with the molten rock, and I won't argue, because tetryons aren't even hypothetical particles, they're Treknobabble. Cold fusion, though, has a meaning, and that ain't it.
It fuses the lava and it was cold. Cold fusion. What more of a match do you need?
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
No, the lava wasn't "fused", it was frozen into solid rock. Nuclear fusion is the combination of elements, resulting in a release of energy. An uncontained cold fusion reaction would have killed Spock outright - he essentially would have been at the center of a nuclear bomb, albeit one without a million-degree fireball (probably one in the hundreds of degrees, though, so not really a lot better than molten lava anyway).
Like I said, make it a Treknobabble thing (that's what I turn that into in my head anyway, because why is a shuttlecraft carrying around a cold-fusion induction device in the first place?) and we're cool (as it were). But don't pervert existing theoretical physics and expect me not to show my autism all over the damn place.
Don't get me wrong, but i don't like TNG movies at all, beginning with Generations (one of the most terrible things Star Trek has ever spawned, IMO)
I think Nemesis was the worst one myself. Feels a bit like a rehash of TUC combined with a bit of not so good fanfiction. I mean several details were the same, but with some modifications.
Diplomatic opportunity with a previously hostile power (Klingons in TUC, Romulans in Nemesis)
Hostile supership that can fire while cloaked (Chang's BoP in TUC, the Scimitar in Nemesis)
Last movie of that generation.
Enterprise battered in the end.
Enterprise gets help after the battle starts. (Excelsior in TUC, Romulan Mogais in Nemesis)
Crew pretty much breaks up in the end. (Enterprise decommissioned in TUC, Riker promoted to Captain of the Titan in Nemesis)
Generations could have been better, but it was also a bit of a "passing of the Torch" movie. Insurrection was less action and more morality.
Nemesis was a rehash of Wrath of Khan to some extend, a simple revenge story. Sure the things you listed resemble TUC but it's only on a superficial level IMHO. There's no doubt, that it's bad but it is by far not as insulting as "Generations" is.
To me "Generations" is by far the worst Trek movie i have ever seen. (And it's not because of the "action" in those movies.)
I'm not starting to enumerate all the things that annoy and irritate me about that stupid movie, but if you are curious (and if you are able to tolerate some really dark humor) you should look for Mr. Plinkett's Star Trek Generations review on Youtube. Unlike most movie reviewers on Youtube, those guys know what they are talking about and really hit the nail on the head. But consider yourself be warned and expect to see some dark humor.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
No, the lava wasn't "fused", it was frozen into solid rock. Nuclear fusion is the combination of elements, resulting in a release of energy. An uncontained cold fusion reaction would have killed Spock outright - he essentially would have been at the center of a nuclear bomb, albeit one without a million-degree fireball (probably one in the hundreds of degrees, though, so not really a lot better than molten lava anyway).
Like I said, make it a Treknobabble thing (that's what I turn that into in my head anyway, because why is a shuttlecraft carrying around a cold-fusion induction device in the first place?) and we're cool (as it were). But don't pervert existing theoretical physics and expect me not to show my autism all over the damn place.
You're thinking of a specific definition of fusion. I can also just mean fused, i.e. joined together, made solid, made whole.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
"Being fused" can mean many things. "Cold fusion", however, only means one thing. Your argument is akin to claiming that setting fire to the interior of your car is the same thing as starting the engine, as both could be considered "internal combustion".
Mustrum, what I mean is that if "cold fusion" were a reality, it just means a fusion reaction that takes place at less than millions of degrees. It does not mean "freezing molten lava in place" - that's Captain Cold, not Cold Fusion. Tell me it's the result of a tetryon cascade interacting with the molten rock, and I won't argue, because tetryons aren't even hypothetical particles, they're Treknobabble. Cold fusion, though, has a meaning, and that ain't it.
I know what Cold Fusion means now. If scientists prove fusion can't happen at room temperature? Then the term becomes kinda disused. (Especially since real fusion reactors exist in Star Trek, and they even can make anti-matter reactors, so it's not really an exciting field of tech anyway, where some quacks come out all day that they've "solved it").
Maybe they pick that word and use it for something else, a century later. Maybe it wasn't even human scientists that picked the name, but Vulcans or Tellarites and it's just a backtranslation where "cold fusion" was the closest to the name?
After all, people (or at least Androids and their creatores) have forgotten what the term house wife means in the 24th century.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Comments
Remind me again which movie has a 74 year old man run with Akimbo style phaser rifles shooting through a ship full of purple space orcs and riding a dune buggy with rocket launcher just for the sake of riding a dune buggy with rocket launcher?
The JJ movies have the same old megalomanic villian seeking revenge plot all the TNG movies have.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
I was seriously unaware of that. Then again, I liked Nemesis, so I guess I'm just not a real Trekkie. [/sarcasm]
Your father was captain of a starship for twelve minutes. He saved 800 lives, including your mother's, and yours.
I dare you to do better.
So I am a real Trekkie? Man, this is just going back and forth. I'm starting to think this whole "real Trekkie" thing might be kinda TRIBBLE. But that's probably just my non-real-Trekkie brain talking.
Your father was captain of a starship for twelve minutes. He saved 800 lives, including your mother's, and yours.
I dare you to do better.
Is there some sort of initiation? A secret ritual conducted by the light of the new moon?
I find the term, "Real Trekkie" silly. Either one likes Star Trek or one does not. Some of us know a little bit more about the shows and films and their backgrounds, yes. But such knowledge does not indicate one fan is superior to another.
No True Scotsman like a Kamikaze Scotsmen.
I must say that I agree with this. When opening this discussion, my goal was not to discuss about who is and who isn't a "real Trekkie". I only wanted to complain about one concrete film, because I just watched it that day and wanted to share my frustration somewhere
It surely is. But it is also not my place to decide for others what is and is not Star Trek.
Not high enough in food chain?
Thank you!
JJ Trek is Trek in NAME only, in my opinion. Just a bunch of "leave your brain at the door" action films. Hell, even JJ himself said Trek was 'too smart' for him growing up. Personally, if someone's going to make a Trek film, have the person making it be a fan, foremost. Phase 2, ST Continues and Axanar (blows a raspberry at CBS) were made by fans and quite good, and living to what is the heart of Trek. JJ Kirk is nothing but your typical bad boy who is a jerk and just happens to be able save the day. JJ Spock...waiting for him to get a black uniform, and sit in his quarters, cutting himself with razors while listening to the Cure. McCoy needs to be older. Scotty is a circus clown purely for comedy, and what's the deal with that goblin sidekick of his? Sulu....useless. Chekov, the new Wesley Crusher. Uhura: Spock's booty call. The Enterprise, imo, looks hideous, both inside and out (a brewery or whatever they used for engineering for the alien ships did not look good in the original V, nor does it look good 25+ years later). Don't like the idea of a more militant Starfleet, either.
To me, JJ Trek would be better as a story on the Mirror Universe TOS crew. Since the JJ Prise makes a lot more sense if the events of a Mirror Darkly were used here, rather than the arrival of a Borgified Red Dwarf commanded by one of the most boring bad guys in trek lore.
Got me a new picture for my dart board, now. >_>
difference is, I like Giorgeo.
And I thought I was rare as it was for liking Star Trek and Star Wars. Imagine that.
Thanks, The neighbors screamed. Their children cried. The cops took me away in handcuffs.
"We" have no such feelings. I hate the opening of Into Dorkness, because it runs roughshod over real physics rather than using traditional Treknobabble, but I rather like the movies. They feel like TOS.
Ain't your place to decide what is and is not Star Trek for me and mine. All I am asking for is this: How about people who do hate the new films shut up about it? Tired of seeing it Tired of hearing it. It is always the same tired nonsense which is something along the lines of - i hate the new films because blah-blah-blah, So you should hate them too. That is the same tired old nonsense which has been running around since 2009. Your message is trite, boring and unoriginal. Common, even.
We got it the firdt time. You're not adding anything fresh or intersting to the conversation. You're copying what someone else who has a much better command of English than you do said so much better years ago. That's not just boring, it's lazy. Both of these are cardinal sins on the internet, aren't they?
Lastly, if you cannot take someone strongly disagreeing with you in public. perhaps the Internet is not the place for you. Telling an anonymous someone to stay out of your little bash fest when you have no power to make them do so is completely rididculous.
So if you don't care that I don't like the movie, then DON'T READ this discussion! I didn't force anyone to read it, I opened this thread to share my thoughts, because after seeing the film for the first time, I wanted to see if someone else thinks the same, or are there other opinions. And yes, I didn't know what other people think because I don't spend the major part of my life on internet forums, so if for you this topic is unoriginal, it's not my problem, no one forced you to read it. For me it is very original.
And no, I didn't copy what other people wrote about that topic, because I didn't read any opinion about film before posting my topic. And about your comment concerning my English, well sorry, it's not my native tongue, and remark like that just once again shows your lack of culture. I can bet that I speak more languages than you, but does it matter?
Cardinal sins on the internet? xD Sorry, but who wrote internet commandments ever? What is this divinization of internet for? Internet is just a tool, nothing more, don't make special new ethics and morality out of it. But ok, maybe I didn't learn well internet "rules", but you are definitely the one who lacks culture of communication.
You can strongly disagree with someone without offending and calling someone a hypocrite and similar things. But oh my.. am I really required to teach you something that your parents should have taught you? I feel sorry for you, really.
And I suppose that the aliens on this world had superior eyesight, busy astrologists and a thin atmosphere so that they were constantly watching the skies for suspicious new stars that it was safer to land underwater than stay in high orbit - if I tell this myself long enough, the Enterprise stars coming out of the water and my mind is then completely focused on the beauty I see, and the cognitive dissonance can't set in.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Like I said, make it a Treknobabble thing (that's what I turn that into in my head anyway, because why is a shuttlecraft carrying around a cold-fusion induction device in the first place?) and we're cool (as it were). But don't pervert existing theoretical physics and expect me not to show my autism all over the damn place.
To me "Generations" is by far the worst Trek movie i have ever seen. (And it's not because of the "action" in those movies.)
I'm not starting to enumerate all the things that annoy and irritate me about that stupid movie, but if you are curious (and if you are able to tolerate some really dark humor) you should look for Mr. Plinkett's Star Trek Generations review on Youtube. Unlike most movie reviewers on Youtube, those guys know what they are talking about and really hit the nail on the head. But consider yourself be warned and expect to see some dark humor.
You're thinking of a specific definition of fusion. I can also just mean fused, i.e. joined together, made solid, made whole.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Maybe they pick that word and use it for something else, a century later. Maybe it wasn't even human scientists that picked the name, but Vulcans or Tellarites and it's just a backtranslation where "cold fusion" was the closest to the name?
After all, people (or at least Androids and their creatores) have forgotten what the term house wife means in the 24th century.